Alain Afflelou Franchiseur v Tung Trương, 33086406860

WIPO Case No. D2024-0499

ARBITRATION
AND
MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Alain Afflelou Franchiseur v. Tung Trương, 33086406860

Case No. D2024-0499

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Alain Afflelou Franchiseur, France, represented by Novagraaf France, France.

The Respondent is Tung Trương, 33086406860, Viet Nam.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <allelou.com> is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on February 2, 2024.

On February 2, 2024, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in

connection with the disputed domain name. On February 2, 2024, the Registrar transmitted by email to the

Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name

which differed from the named Respondent (Registration Private, Domains by Proxy, LLC)) and contact

information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on February 5,

2024, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the

Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on

February 8, 2024.

The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended Complaint satisfied the formal

requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for

Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for

Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”).

In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the

Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on February 13, 2024. In accordance with the Rules,

paragraph 5, the due date for Response was March 4, 2024. The Respondent did not submit any response.

Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on March 5, 2024.

The Center appointed Willem J. H. Leppink as the sole panelist in this matter on March 12, 2024. The

Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and

page 2

Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the

Rules, paragraph 7.

4. Factual Background

The following facts are undisputed.

The Complainant was founded in 1972. The Complainant operates as a franchisor of optical products and

services in Europe, particularly in France and Spain.

The Complainant is the owner of several trademark registrations for the word trademark AFFLELOU, e.g.,

the International trademark registration No. 1305969 registered on April 26, 2016, and the corresponding

French trademark registration No. 4267761 registered on August 19, 2016, both for goods and services in

classes 3, 5, 9, 10, 35, 36, 37, 38 and 44.

The Complainant owns the domain name <afflelou.com> which was registered on September 13, 1999.

The Complainant’s trademark was registered before the disputed domain name, which was registered on

April 19, 2023. The disputed domain name at the time of filing the Complaint and at the time of rendering the

Decision resolved to a parked page containing pay-per-click (“PPC”) links, which are unrelated to the

Complainant and/or its activities.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer

of the disputed domain name.

Notably, the Complainant contends to the following.

The Complainant states that its trademarks and the disputed domain name both start with the letter “a” and

end with the element “lelou”. The only difference is between the double letter “l” in the disputed domain

name and the double letter “ff” in the trademarks of the Complainant, which both have very similar shapes,

namely a long vertical line. As a result, there is a risk of confusion.

Furthermore, the Complainant notes that it has not granted any authorization for the Respondent nor is the

Respondent a licensee of the Complainant or affiliated to him. Besides this, the Respondent is not making

any legitimate commercial or fair use of the disputed domain name.

The Complainant has sent a cease-and-desist letter to the Registrar for the Registrar and the Respondent

but never received any response. There are also mail servers configured in relation to the disputed domain

name and therefore it is possible that the Respondent has created an email address for the purpose of

sending fraudulent emails. Furthermore, given the renown of the Complainant, the Respondent could not

have been unaware of the existence of the Complainant’s trademarks.

The Complainant according to an article it submitted (published in 2013), has 1,200 shops worldwide and

generated a turnover of EUR 770 million.

B. Respondent

The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.

page 3

6. Discussion and Findings

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. The standing (or

threshold) test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between

the Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on

Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition, (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.7.

The Complainant has shown rights in respect of a trademark or service mark for the purposes of the Policy.

WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1.

The Panel finds the mark is recognizable within the disputed domain name. The Complainant’s marks and

the disputed domain name both start with the letter “a” and end with the element “lelou”. Accordingly, the

disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0,

section 1.7.

The Panel finds the first element of the Policy has been established.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

In light of its assessment under 6.C., the Panel will not discuss the second element.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

In order to establish the third element, the Complainant at a minimum will have to prove that the disputed

domain name was registered in bad faith by the Respondent.

The question then arises whether the Respondent, who did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions, had

the Complainant in mind when registering the disputed domain name. A positive answer to this question

could be given if under the given circumstances it is implausible that a respondent was not aware of the

complainant and its trademark at the time of registration.

The evidence in the case file as presented is insufficient to come to the conclusion that the Respondent

registered the disputed domain name with the Complainant and its trademark in mind and thus being in bad

faith. A simple Internet search conducted by the Panel on the term “allelou” shows results unrelated to the

Complainant.

The Panel acknowledges that there are, on the one hand, certain circumstances that could indicate bad faith,

e.g., the failure of the Respondent to submit a response and to provide any evidence of actual or

contemplated good faith use, and the Respondent’s concealing its identity or use of false or incomplete

contact details. On the other hand, there is no evidence submitted that email addresses connected to the

disputed domain name have been used for any illegal activity or any other purpose targeting the

Complainant. Also, the PPC links on the parked page do not relate to the Complainant and its activities.

Without any further convincing circumstances that would indicate bad faith, the Panel cannot find that the

disputed domain name which reflects a name that could be used for bona fide purposes, was registered in

bad faith.

While the Complainant has submitted some evidence to show the notoriety of the Complainant and its

trademarks, the Panel finds there is not sufficient evidence of the Respondent’s targeting of the Complainant.

The Panel finds the third element of the Policy has not been established.

page 4

7. Decision

For the foregoing reasons, the Complaint is denied.

/Willem J. H. Leppink/ Willem J. H. Leppink

Sole Panelist

Date: March 22, 2024